An intense battle over a lucrative John Wayne Airport lease ratcheted up Tuesday, with promises of legal action after Orange County supervisors granted the lease to a firm that was ranked fifth out of six by the county’s evaluation panel.

Two companies – first-ranked Signature Flight Support, which has held the lease for over 20 years, and fifth-ranked ACI Jet – have been locked in an intense competition for the lease to run general aviation services at the airport, which covers everything from corporate jets to small propeller planes.

“It is astonishing that the Orange County Board of Supervisors ignored California and federal law by moving forward with a change in fixed based operators at John Wayne Airport,” said Geoff Heck a senior vice president at Signature, in a statement.

“Today’s action was not transparent, fair, or objective, and will cause unnecessary disruption at the airport…Given the Board’s unwise action, we will vigorously pursue all avenues of redress.”

In response, county officials said the board can choose whichever contractor it deems is best for the public.

“The Orange County Board of Supervisors has the right and responsibility in any procurement process to make the decision that is best for the County and its residents,” said the county statement.

“While those who do not compete favorably in a procurement process may disagree with the final selection, this does not make it illegal nor does it render it outside the County’s standard protocol.”

Both sides turned out dozens of speakers at the Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday, where supervisors voted 4-1 to award the two-year lease to ACI Jet. Supervisor Lisa Bartlett was the only no vote.

At the end of the new lease, the county is supposed to issue longer leases as part of a new airport master plan.

Supervisor Shawn Nelson and several Signature tenants have said at recent board meetings that Signature overcharged customers at John Wayne Airport with fuel prices that far exceed market rates. Signature disputes such claims and alleges supervisors illegally sidestepped bidding rules.

None of the supervisors have explained why they chose the No. 5 firm, ACI, instead of a higher-ranked company. Supervisors have collected thousands of dollars in campaign donations from people who work or advocate for the companies vying for the lease.

As the lease decision was approaching in the second half of last year, ACI and its supporters outspent Signature by 2-to-1 in contributions to supervisors, according to a Voice of OC review of campaign filings. ACI’s supporters contributed $7,700, while Signature’s supporters spent $2,750.

Todd Spitzer received $4,300 from ACI supporters and $1,250 from Signature supporters, Andrew Do received $1,900 from ACI supporters and $250 from Signature supporters, Nelson received $1,000 from ACI supporters, and Bartlett received $500 from ACI supporters and $1,250 from Signature supporters.

In a series of escalating moves, Signature publicly accused supervisors of breaking the law to pick ACI, complained earlier this month to the Federal Aviation Administration, and vowed to lodge a formal complaint with the FAA that could impact the airport’s federal funding.

“The Board [of Supervisors] has gone to extraordinary lengths to manipulate the process to achieve a predetermined outcome,” said Katie Thomson, a former chief legal counsel to the Federal Aviation Administration who now represents Signature, in public comments to supervisors before the vote.

“If the board continues to persist in violating federal law, Signature will also persist in pursuing appropriate legal remedies, including filing a formal Part 16 complaint with FAA and urging the agency to withhold funding from the airport.”

She then handed officials what she described as a draft complaint under Part 16, a lawsuit-like process in which the FAA can hold back airport grants if it determines the county violated federal contracting rules and the county refuses to correct it. Those rules require airport owners to “negotiate in good faith and on reasonable terms” when choosing companies to provide aircraft services, according to the FAA.

After the vote, Signature issued a statement calling the supervisors’ selection of ACI illegal and vowing to “pursue all avenues” in response.

County officials, meanwhile, said the claims had no merit and that the legal filing would probably go nowhere.

The FAA has the authority to issue a cease and desist letter against the county but the facts of the case don’t support that happening, County Counsel Leon Page said during the meeting.

That view was backed up by an attorney for ACI who also once served as chief counsel to the FAA.

The attorney, Kenneth P. Quinn, said discussions with FAA officials led him to believe the county is “far from having your federal funds jeopardized in any way.”

By choosing ACI, he said supervisors are doing exactly what the federal contracting rules are supposed to do: bring in competition. “I think you’re going to be commended,” Quinn said.

County officials have pointed to a chart showing Signature was significantly overcharging for fuel along with the airport’s other fixed-base operator, Atlantic Aviation. The chart also shows Signature’s proposed future fuel pricing being much higher than ACI’s, at $5.50 per gallon versus $3.78.

Nelson, who’s been the board’s most vocal supporter of ACI, said it was false for Signature to claim the evaluation panel’s rankings should be followed.

When it comes to bid evaluation panels, Nelson said, “sometimes they’re just there to give us a guide.”

Signature isn’t treating all of its customers the same, Nelson said, adding it’s his “duty” to ensure the airport serves all of its customers fairly.

And he wasn’t happy with how a Signature executive argued with him about fuel prices at a public meeting.

“One of you stood up at our December meeting and publicly wanted to argue with me,” Nelson said.

Signature, meanwhile, has made clear it plans to keep up its campaign against the supervisors’ action.

Nick Gerda covers county government and Santa Ana for Voice of OC. You can contact him at ngerda@voiceofoc.org.

Members of the public raised concerns about a shortage of housing options for homeless people, a troubling county economic future, and alleged improprieties by supervisors in choosing a major airport contractor.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Let’s see all their emails and cell phone records (now – in real time) so we can begin to know what REALLY is going on rather than the public being in the dark while this corrupt organized crime family in the OC continues.

mk whittington

Last Year’s Grand Jury tried to tell the Board of SUpervisors that their Procurement System was inefficient and lacked structure and leadership. The BOS brushed it off as baseless. Had they acted upon the recommendations then, the airport fiasco could have been avoided.Shirley Grindle is correct – if the BOS doubted the recommendations for contracts, send it back for re-evaluation. Anything short of that appears to be the result of political ($$$) influence.

Clark

The incumbents had obviously colluded to set artificially high prices. The supervisors did the right thing.

Allan Bartlett

Signature has been overcharging for AvGas and Jet A fuel for years. I’m happy to see ACI get selected as the new major FBO at John Wayne.

David Zenger

Um, okay, Allan. But what about vendors 2,3,and 4?

Paul Lucas

I’m guessing a good amount of bribery was involved

Shirley L. Grindle

The County Procurement Manual used to include the requirement that the Board publicly explain why they chose a bidder who was not ranked No. 1 by the Evaluation Panel — but that requirement has been omitted from the current County Procurement Manual. The publicly-stated reasons to go against the recommended No. 1 bidder was to make it difficult for the Board to award contracts to firms with influential Lobbyists or to firms that had provided campaign funds to them.
I assume Nelson had good reason to go against the ranking, but I wonder why he wouldn’t explain those reasons in a public hearing.
If the Board believes the Evaluation Panel did a bad job, they should send it back with clear directions as to the factors to be considered in ranking the bidders. To do otherwise reeks of “behind the scenes” influence on the selection process.

LFOldTimer

“Supervisors collected thousands of dollars in campaign donations last year from people who work or advocate for the companies vying for the lease.”

Ok. Fine. Now is it possible for the media to actually do some investigative work and tell us how much each of the six companies vying for this county airport contract paid in campaign donations to the Board of Supervisors and specifically which Supervisors benefited?

Let’s start there and work backwards.

ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS follow the money.

I agree that the Supervisors shouldn’t have to pick the #1 recommended candidate on the list. But a 4-1 vote to select a #5 rated company of six candidates is pretty suspicious if you ask me.

verifiedsane

The OC board of supervisors must of ordered in rotten fish for lunch, because as usual…something smells horribly wrong here…